Yes, we all know about Lord Acton’s famous aphorism. But power doesn’t just corrupt the person who wields it, it also corrupts those who observe power in action.

Power causes outside observers to adjust their views in such a way as to make the most powerful men seem more virtuous. When an outsider criticizes a powerful man, many people will naturally gravitate in support of the powerful man, even if their actual views would suggest more sympathy for the attacker. (Perhaps this is true of powerful women as well, I am less sure of that claim.)

Most conservatives have outlooks and personalities more aligned with people like Bolton, Sessions, Mattis, Tillerson, Kelly etc. than with Donald Trump. But when Trump is attacked, they instinctively believe that the attacker is lying, and that Trump is an innocent victim.

Most importantly, they do not reach this conclusion due to any sort of objective information—indeed all the evidence points in the opposite direction. Rather Trump’s power subtly warps their minds, causing them to believe things that are obviously not true.

Of course the Democrats have exactly the opposite reaction. However theirs is more justifiable (in this case) precisely because all the objective information suggests the attackers are correct. The Democrats don’t like the politics of the attackers, but never doubted that they are more honest men than Trump.

American presidents have far too much power, and the corruption I describe is just one of the many bad consequences of the imperial presidency.

The ideal is a bland president like Coolidge, and Biden is a bit closer to that ideal than Trump.

John Bolton has lots to say about the worst president in US history:

Mr Bolton wrote that Mr Trump “stunningly turned the conversation to the coming US presidential election, alluding to China’s economic capability to affect the ongoing campaigns, pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win”.

The Financial Times reported last year that Mr Trump had told Mr Xi in Osaka that he would tone down criticism of China’s handling of pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong to help revive then-stalled trade negotiations. The White House did not refute the claims at the time.

Please Mr. Xi, help me to win.

Mr Bolton said Mr Trump did not want to get involved in the debate about China and Hong Kong ahead of the G20 summit in Osaka, telling his adviser that “we have human rights problems too”.

He added that the president had refused to issue a traditional statement on the anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, saying, “That was 15 years ago . . . who cares about it?”

Has it already been 15 years since the Chinese government showed real “strength” in putting down those horrible “riots”? How time flies.

Mr Bolton said Mr Trump also told Mr Xi to go ahead with its internment of Uighurs — Chinese ethnic Muslims who have been rounded up and placed in facilities that human rights groups compare to concentration camps. Mr Trump on Wednesday signed legislation aimed at punishing China for its treatment of the Uighurs.

And we’re told that only America can stand up to China’s illiberalism. Do you think China cares more about meaningless pieces of legislation on the Uighurs or what Trump tells them behind the scenes in trade negotiations?

I’ve always been 100% opposed to the authoritarian CCP, and have been rewarded with nonstop accusations of being “soft on China”, often by the same people who praise Trump.

The Washington Post said Mr Bolton described Mr Trump as “erratic” and “stunningly uninformed” about foreign policy. He added that foreign leaders were often successful in manipulating the president.

Mr Bolton said Russia’s President Vladimir Putin succeeded in boosting Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro by comparing Juan Guaidó — whom Washington recognises as the legitimate leader of the country — to Hillary Clinton, Mr Trump’s opponent in the 2016 presidential election.

LOL. Haven’t I been telling you all that Trump’s as easy to manipulate as a kindergardener? Do you finally believe me?

Mr Bolton said Mr Pompeo quipped that he was “having a cardiac arrest” after listening to a phone call about North Korea ahead of Mr Trump’s June 2018 summit with Kim Jong Un in Singapore.

But Pompeo has political ambitions, unlike Bolton.

According to The Washington Post, Mr Trump expressed surprise in a meeting with Theresa May, then British prime minister, that the UK was a “nuclear power”.

And Trump says people are “surprised” to find out how much he knows!

Mr Bolton rued that Mr Trump “saw conspiracies under rocks” and was “stunningly uninformed on how to run the White House”. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, he had a warning about how Mr Trump would treat China if re-elected in November.

As I keep telling you all, the second term is going to be completely INSANE.

Over at the WSJ, Bolton provides more evidence that Trump respects power more than anything else:

Trump was particularly dyspeptic about Taiwan, having listened to Wall Street financiers who had gotten rich off mainland China investments. One of Trump’s favorite comparisons was to point to the tip of one of his Sharpies and say, “This is Taiwan,” then point to the historic Resolute desk in the Oval Office and say, “This is China.” So much for American commitments and obligations to another democratic ally.

And why stop at a second term—Trump’s already dreaming of a third term. Indeed “some people say” it’s a great idea:

In Buenos Aires on Dec. 1, at dinner, Xi began by telling Trump how wonderful he was, laying it on thick. Xi read steadily through note cards, doubtless all of it hashed out arduously in advance. Trump ad-libbed, with no one on the U.S. side knowing what he would say from one minute to the next.

One highlight came when Xi said he wanted to work with Trump for six more years, and Trump replied that people were saying that the two-term constitutional limit on presidents should be repealed for him. Xi said the U.S. had too many elections, because he didn’t want to switch away from Trump, who nodded approvingly.

The Trumpistas will tell you that Bolton, Tillerson, Gary Cohn, John Kelly, General Mattis and all the rest are pathological liars. Of course when Trump appointed these people they were cited as evidence that Trump was hiring the “best people”.

This tweet caught my eye:

Adam Tooze (who I greatly respect) is presenting a widely held view. And he’s technically correct.

But is worry about whether your wi-fi will go down actually equivalent to the “tough start” our pioneer ancestors had?

I guess this is why old people like me become reactionaries. A different frame of reference. Were the old also reactionaries on economic issues back in earlier centuries, when we had a steady state economy? I wonder.

HT: Razib Khan

This FT story reminded me of the opening scene in 2001, where a primitive club turned into a space station:

Brutal details emerge of deadly China-India border clash

Soldiers battered each other with clubs during fight that claimed at least 20 lives

I predict that the hominids currently clubbing each other to death on the China-India border will eventually be capable of sending rockets into space.

PS. Et tu, Nepal?

Tiny Nepal has snubbed its powerful neighbour India by adopting a new political map depicting disputed mountain territory as its own in the latest example of rising geopolitical tensions in strategic areas of the Himalayas.

Under the changes, which come as New Delhi and Beijing are vying for influence in the region, the Nepali parliament this weekend passed a constitutional amendment altering the country’s official map to depict the Lipulekh Pass and other disputed areas as definitive parts of Nepal.

Isn’t nationalism wonderful?

In May, retail sales regained about 80% of the losses from March and April. That’s in one month! In contrast, even a year after the trough in retail sales in March 2009, retail sales had recovered only about half the losses.

I understand that these are strange times, but I fail to understand how forecasts can be so far off:

Retail sales jumped by a record 17.7% in May over April, coming in at more than double the consensus estimate for a rise of 8.4%.

I don’t doubt that market forecasters are competent individuals. So I assume that these data points are intrinsically difficult to predict. But does anyone know why? Don’t we have real time daily data on credit card sales? And don’t most people use credit cards these days? So how can the forecast for May be 9.3% off course? We live in the computer age, but seem no more able to predict retail sales announcements than back in the 1920s. Why?

(With the earlier May labor report, it was partly definitional problems. That doesn’t seem to apply here.)

Off topic:

Buffett endured his worst performance vs. the S&P 500 index (SPX)in a decade last year, and 2020 is on track to be nearly as bad, the FT noted. CFRA Research analyst Cathy Siefert said Berkshire’s “chronic underperformance” needs to be answered for, especially considering some of Buffett’s decision-making in recent years, including the writing down of his stake in Kraft Heinz (KHC) by $3 billion and the “unmitigated disaster” that was his Occidental Petroleum (OXY)deal.

Wait, isn’t Warren Buffett the strongest argument for market inefficiency?